5 ms·

Transceivers: The Device Between the NIC and the Network

78 points by lelf 7y ago

KaiserPro 7y ago
THis brings back the horror of trying rationalise SFPs during an office move. A bunch of new kit, some new fibre, and my boss forgetting the difference between LC and SC connectors. Add to that, our supplier trying to palm off knockoff SFPs (SFPs are normally hardware locked to a specific vendor, despite them being made at the same OEM. This allows them to add a markup of >$300) In the end I found an OEM SFP that worked with all our kit, and all our fibre and replaced them all with that. Anything shorter than 2 meters was swapped for a twinax (A coax cable with inbuilt SFPs) because they are more tolerant to being poked through things.
- AndyMcConachie 7y ago
  There's an entire black market around creating forgeries of branded SFPs and other transceivers. Source, I've been bitten by it. You may think you're buying a branded SFP from a vendor(Cisco, Juniper, etc), when in fact the vendor in question has not tested that SFP with their gear. There are subtle differences in SFPs and there is good reason to have them tested with your vendor's gear. Not saying the price hike for vendor certified optics is justified, but link flaps cost time and money.
  - bloopernova 7y ago
    Ugh, thank you for reminding me about the mess surrounding SFPs. While I enjoyed building a SAN back in the day, I did not enjoy sourcing the correct components and making a dozen different brands of hardware play nice together.
- scohesc 7y ago
  I seem to remember when I was at a small ISP helping plan fiber optic networks, that fiberstore.com had a promotion going on where if you bought enough of their gear and made good reviews, they'd send you a free SFP reprogrammer which would somehow allow you to change vendor-locks on existing SFPs to let you take say a Cisco branded SFP and use it in an HP Aruba switch. It seems silly to me how there's all these standards for the transceivers, but vendors still lock people in with hardware codes, etc.
  - phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
    I used them for my fiber transceivers. The vendor wanted $249, FS had them for $6, and they have never given me problems.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    Cisco recently purchased a fairly large fiber optics firm, so these days could be limited if they opt to implement greater integration between their devices and the optics.
azazel75 7y ago
"Before Ethernet was common, BNC coaxial cables were used on some NICs as well" Yes, at that time Ethernet was coaxial as well, the 10Base2
- ngvrnd 7y ago
  For fun, look up "vampire taps" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_tap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_tap
jdofaz 7y ago
This brought back memories of the easy to accidentally detach transceivers for old Macintosh computers and LaserWriter printers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interfac...

78 points by lelf 7y ago

THis brings back the horror of trying rationalise SFPs during an office move. A bunch of new kit, some new fibre, and my boss forgetting the difference between LC and SC connectors. Add to that, our supplier trying to palm off knockoff SFPs (SFPs are normally hardware locked to a specific vendor, despite them being made at the same OEM. This allows them to add a markup of >$300) In the end I found an OEM SFP that worked with all our kit, and all our fibre and replaced them all with that. Anything shorter than 2 meters was swapped for a twinax (A coax cable with inbuilt SFPs) because they are more tolerant to being poked through things.

AndyMcConachie 7y ago
There's an entire black market around creating forgeries of branded SFPs and other transceivers. Source, I've been bitten by it. You may think you're buying a branded SFP from a vendor(Cisco, Juniper, etc), when in fact the vendor in question has not tested that SFP with their gear. There are subtle differences in SFPs and there is good reason to have them tested with your vendor's gear. Not saying the price hike for vendor certified optics is justified, but link flaps cost time and money.
- bloopernova 7y ago
  Ugh, thank you for reminding me about the mess surrounding SFPs. While I enjoyed building a SAN back in the day, I did not enjoy sourcing the correct components and making a dozen different brands of hardware play nice together.
scohesc 7y ago
I seem to remember when I was at a small ISP helping plan fiber optic networks, that fiberstore.com had a promotion going on where if you bought enough of their gear and made good reviews, they'd send you a free SFP reprogrammer which would somehow allow you to change vendor-locks on existing SFPs to let you take say a Cisco branded SFP and use it in an HP Aruba switch. It seems silly to me how there's all these standards for the transceivers, but vendors still lock people in with hardware codes, etc.
- phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
  I used them for my fiber transceivers. The vendor wanted $249, FS had them for $6, and they have never given me problems.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  Cisco recently purchased a fairly large fiber optics firm, so these days could be limited if they opt to implement greater integration between their devices and the optics.

azazel75 7y ago

"Before Ethernet was common, BNC coaxial cables were used on some NICs as well" Yes, at that time Ethernet was coaxial as well, the 10Base2

ngvrnd 7y ago
For fun, look up "vampire taps" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_tap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_tap

jdofaz 7y ago

This brought back memories of the easy to accidentally detach transceivers for old Macintosh computers and LaserWriter printers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interfac...